The score and the evidence grade answer different questions
The score is the sum of ten criterion awards, out of 100. It assesses the documented casino service; it is not a probability of payment or a forecast of winnings. The letter describes how securely the evidence supports the findings. A well-supported negative conclusion can have a strong evidence grade.
Each investigation publishes its points, maximum weights and reasons together. Read the restrictions behind the total before using it to compare casinos with different products or account conditions.
The ten criteria add up to 100
| Criterion | Maximum points |
|---|---|
| Operator identity | 15 |
| Licence & scope | 15 |
| Withdrawals & KYC | 15 |
| Payments | 12 |
| Complaints & redress | 10 |
| Domain & security | 8 |
| Game integrity | 8 |
| Terms & enforcement | 7 |
| Player protection | 5 |
| Support continuity | 5 |
What earns credit—and what limits it
A current record identifying the actual domain carries more weight than an undated claim in a footer. Clear payment limits can earn payment-documentation credit, while a blocked withdrawal can still lower the separate assessment of release conditions. Published promises and demonstrated execution are different types of evidence.
Where one dispute affects more than one criterion, each deduction must describe a distinct consequence: for example, unavailable money under withdrawals and repeated unanswered messages under support. Repeating the same deduction under several names would overstate the evidence.
Point ranges and comparative examples
| Criterion | Evidence supporting higher credit | What limits the award |
|---|---|---|
| Operator identity · 15 | A current independent record matching the company, contract and exact domain. | Conflicting company numbers, an unverified trading chain or missing responsible entity. |
| Licence and scope · 15 | Current exact-domain authorisation that agrees with the contract. | Expired or contradictory status, company-only entries, unverified domain coverage or reliance on incorporation alone. |
| Withdrawals and KYC · 15 | 10–12: documented release conditions and attributable payment evidence, with the upper end requiring stronger corroboration. 13–15 requires wider current evidence across payment sizes and verification, not a single small cashout. | 7–9: significant delays or account-access questions despite an operating process. 0–6: major missing release terms, severe unresolved patterns or no dependable current cashout service. An unresolved case is assessed on its record, not presumed to be a proven offence. |
| Payments · 12 | 11–12: usable asset/network minima and costs with little material ambiguity. 10: defined principal limits and charges, but incomplete route coverage. | 9: useful instructions but unconfirmed currency-specific minima or charges. 8: a material unresolved cost or limit contradiction. 0–7: substantial missing, inaccessible or incompatible payment conditions. A live tariff can change even when its published structure earns credit. |
| Complaints and redress · 10 | Case-level explanations, accessible escalation and independently supported recovery. | Silence, inadequate accounting or unconfirmed recovery. A closed file, permitted withdrawal and confirmed payment receive different treatment. |
| Domain and security · 8 | Verified domain continuity, usable recovery controls and relevant independent security evidence. | An operator claim alone, unexplained domain changes or an incident without adequate documented follow-up. |
| Game integrity · 8 | Attributable provider checks and usable verification for the games covered. | Provider logos alone, unclear test scope, inaccessible verification or contradictory audit claims. |
| Terms and enforcement · 7 | Consistent, accessible conditions with explainable application to individual balances. | Conflicting multipliers, broad forfeiture rules, undisclosed restrictions or unexplained enforcement. |
| Player protection · 5 | Clear limits and exclusion routes, strengthened by demonstrated implementation. | Broken access, unclear activation, unexplained reopening or documented failures to honour a request. |
| Support continuity · 5 | 4/5: published contact routes plus attributable engagement in an identifiable case. 5/5 requires stronger evidence of sustained, reasoned follow-through across difficult cases. | 0–3: weaker continuity, contact details without demonstrated engagement, or repeated non-response. Payment recovery is assessed separately under complaints and redress; a support reply alone does not prove that money was returned. |
The exact point within a range is a case-specific editorial judgement. Its published reason must identify both the strength credited and the limitation preventing a higher award.
The complete Shuffle example below shows how a documented strength earns points while an untested part prevents a full award.
Unknown, historical and contradictory are different findings
- Unknown
- A source or test is missing. We cannot award credit for an unverified strength, but absence alone does not establish misconduct or justify an automatic zero.
- Historical
- A record describes an earlier operator, rule or incident. It can explain a past decision, with its date, but must not masquerade as the current contract.
- Contradictory
- Two relevant sources disagree. The review identifies the exact conflict and the affected criterion; we do not silently select the more favourable number.
Evidence grades run from A to D
| Grade | Meaning |
|---|---|
| A range | Strong current primary documentation with material independent corroboration. |
| B range | A substantial documented case with identifiable gaps. |
| C range | Useful but incomplete, conflicting or partly historical evidence. |
| D range | Major limitations in reconstructing the current service. |
Plus and minus signs distinguish editorial judgments within a range. A filter for B includes B+, B and B-. Grades are not calculated from the number of source links or screenshots.
How directory categories work
| Points | Filter |
|---|---|
| 80–100 | Strong legitimacy signals |
| 65–79 | Legitimate with limits |
| 45–64 | Caution |
| 25–44 | High concern |
| 0–24 | Critical concern |
These bands organise scores; they do not replace each article’s verdict. Closure and migration are separate fields. A closed casino can have a historical score without being a current deposit option. The directory can be ordered by score, name or editorial revision date. We have retired the topic-coverage ranking that rewarded source and image counts.
Worked example: Shuffle’s 79-point assessment
Shuffle’s ten current awards total 79, including 10/12 for payment documentation. The table preserves every criterion, rather than selecting only favourable features.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Operator identity | 13 / 15 |
| Licence & scope | 14 / 15 |
| Withdrawals & KYC | 10 / 15 |
| Payments | 10 / 12 |
| Complaints & redress | 6 / 10 |
| Domain & security | 7 / 8 |
| Game integrity | 7 / 8 |
| Terms & enforcement | 5 / 7 |
| Player protection | 4 / 5 |
| Support continuity | 3 / 5 |
| Total | 79 / 100 |
Why payments receives 10/12
Shuffle’s recovery help article, checked 9 October 2026, specifies eligibility, a first-recovery exception and later charges. That makes a defined procedure assessable. The review’s worked examples retain the thresholds, fee cap and separate unsupported-route conditions. Shuffle’s deposit-recovery help article.
The 10/12 credits those explicit conditions. The missing independent processing test and incomplete coverage of route-specific costs prevent 12/12; the deduction is tied to those evidence limits.
How unresolved complaints enter the assessment
A hold, deduction or failed complaint route can affect the relevant criterion according to attribution, date, severity and corroboration. Reposting an accusation adds no independent evidence, and a separate small payout does not resolve the disputed balance.
Use the complaint-outcome guide for payment, closure and deduplication definitions. Scoring asks what the outcome changes about a service criterion, rather than subtracting a fixed point for every post.
Three dates should not be confused
- Article updated: when the page was edited.
- Evidence checked: when the source was consulted.
- Event date: when the payment, restriction or other event occurred.
A new editorial date does not renew an old certificate or establish a new outcome for a past complaint. Material contradictions remain visible until a source resolves them.
Corrections and previous calculations
CoinPoker’s older headline of 72 was corrected to the 76-point sum already shown by its criteria. That correction did not establish an improvement in payouts. See material corrections for further changes.
Commercial recommendations are explained on the existing commercial-links page. Send a specific factual issue through the correction form.
Who is responsible for the assessment?
Crypto Casino Checker publishes the investigations and accepts factual corrections through its editorial contact. Reviews are attributed to the publication. A source inspection is not a funded account test; a test is described as such only when its method and result are documented. Source inspection and commercial relationships have separate explanations.